Evaluation of a workplace health program to reduce coronary risk factors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to docoment a randomized controlled trial, with follow‐up at three and six months, to determine the impact of a coronary risk factor modification program for employees. Design/methodology/approach Intervention participants received a 12‐week health promotion program involving exercise, education seminars, nutritional analysis and smoking cessation counselling. Outcome measures included differences in coronary risk factors of control and intervention participants between baseline and three and six‐month follow‐up visits. Findings The participants included 566 individuals employed in the Halifax area, Nova Scotia, Canada. They were between 19 and 66 years old with at least two modifiable coronary risk factors. There were statistically significant differences at three months in coronary risk score improvement, smoking cessation, physical activity level increases, body mass index reductions and serum cholesterol. At six months, improvements remained significant except for cholesterol. Reduction in blood pressure was not significantly different. Intervention participants compared to control participants showed significant differences in both cardiac and stroke risk at three and six‐month visits. Practical implications This study demonstrates that employees had a significant coronary disease risk reduction as a result of a relatively short health promotion intervention. Benefits three months post‐intervention were not sustained to the same extent as during the intervention. This underscores the need for long‐term commitment with lifestyle changes and raises the issue of the need for a comprehensive approach that also addresses environmental factors. Originality/value This paper contributes to the current research base on this topic as there are few well‐designed studies to reduce coronary risk factors for employees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it